Appeal No. 2005-2643
Reexamination Control No. 90/005,842
21. We do not agree with appellant. That U.S. banks were and are required to provide
a periodic accounting of their accounts to regulators is appropriate subject matter for
official notice under Ahlert. Furthermore, even apart from regulatory requirements, a
bank would inherently have to employ periodic accounting in order to service its
accounts and to track its own investments. Appellant asserts that it “will not concede
that the Answer’s position [that periodic accounting was required by regulators] is
correct – it may well have been that account holders received information about their
accounts ‘on demand’ only when they requested the information, and it may well have
been that they were not periodically notified by the financial institution.” Reply brief at 8.
This argument incorrectly construes the claim as requiring that the results of the recited
periodic accounting be reported to the account holders.
The rejection of claim 10 is therefore affirmed.
Claim 11, which depends on claim 10, specifies that the “financial instrument
ha[s] a principal component and an accrual component, whereby said retiring step
includes the substeps of redeeming the principal component and the accrual
component.” As the patentability of this claim, which is rejected over the same prior art
as claim 10, is not separately argued, its rejection is affirmed for the same reasons as
the rejection of claim 10. 37 CFR § 1.192(c) (2001).
Claim 12 depends on claim 11 and specifies that “the principal component is
periodically adjusted based on a rate of inflation,” while claim 13, which also depends on
claim 11, specifies that “the accrual component is periodically adjusted based on a rate
33
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007